From: Juan Garavaglia <jg@112bit.com>
To: Stian Ellingsen <stian@plaimi.net>, Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
	<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Thread-Topic: [bitcoin-dev] Encouraging good miners
Thread-Index: AQHSpxYoAh886MfhHE6TOrDxMsbDUqGo9v0AgAFb31A=
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 14:38:40 +0000
Message-ID: <RO1P152MB16426009B098E1EA6280ECEBF5320@RO1P152MB1642.LAMP152.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
References: <uQBxE-Qbd-osime4uulMZZHdF_D7usA2EKsPjkTyXCHM0OakN2Wdoeriyrc73yWp5c5ULQNkIsRXAM64cCom7ecPvdwmatOyc9Kh1sTDpl4=@protonmail.com>
	<c0d518f4-ffb5-704b-02ee-d9587415571c@plaimi.net>
In-Reply-To: <c0d518f4-ffb5-704b-02ee-d9587415571c@plaimi.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 28 Mar 2017 14:38:40.4235 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 1d040637-74d5-403e-b49a-443aa975c900
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: RO1P152MB1644
X-MDID: 1490711924-Xi1HeeGEi9DV
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
	DKIM_VALID,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
	smtp1.linux-foundation.org
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 03:11:39 +0000
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Encouraging good miners
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 14:38:47 -0000

If a miner try to hurt the network mining just empty blocks at some time th=
e rest will start rejecting their blocks and will be orphans so will loss t=
he reward incentive and that miner will join the behavior of the rest of th=
e miners, if that miner has 51% of hashrate there the smallest problem are =
the empty blocks.

-----Original Message-----
From: bitcoin-dev-bounces@lists.linuxfoundation.org [mailto:bitcoin-dev-bou=
nces@lists.linuxfoundation.org] On Behalf Of Stian Ellingsen via bitcoin-de=
v
Sent: Monday, March 27, 2017 2:50 PM
To: Btc Ideas <btcideas@protonmail.com>; Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitco=
in-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Encouraging good miners

On 27/03/17 18:12, Btc Ideas via bitcoin-dev wrote:

> Add a preference for mined blocks to be the one with more=20
> transactions. This comes into play when 2 blocks of the same height=20
> are found. The first good block mined would be orphaned if it had less=20
> transactions than another. Optionally, have this rule apply to the=20
> current block and the previous one.

This would encourage miners to make their own tiny junk transactions to fil=
l up their blocks, perhaps leaving larger, more space-efficient transaction=
s in the mempool.

> This increases incentive for full blocks because a miner thinking the=20
> faster propagation of a smaller block will win him the reward, but=20
> that would no longer be a good assumption.

> I read some miners could attack a chain by mining small or empty=20
> blocks. This makes that a little more difficult, but they can still=20
> attack the chain many ways.

"Good" miners should probably build upon the block with a set of transactio=
ns more similar to what they themselves would include based on their mempoo=
l at the time.  However, miners don't have an incentive to do so today.  In=
stead, they may be better off building upon the block that leaves the most =
valuable transactions in the mempool, e.g. a small or empty block, and mayb=
e leave some valuable transactions in the mempool for the next miner.[1]  T=
his issue could possibly be addressed by a soft-fork that requires miners t=
o pay a portion of their fees to future miners.

[1]
https://freedom-to-tinker.com/2016/10/21/bitcoin-is-unstable-without-the-bl=
ock-reward/

--
Stian


_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev